Billionaire Diane Hendricks' efforts to revitalize Beloit spotlighted on new A&E series
BELOIT, Ill. (WTVO) — Billionaire Diane Hendricks and her efforts to revitalize Beloit, Wisconsin, will be featured on a new A&E series, '.'
The program, which will premiere on Saturday, July 12th, will feature Hendricks and her daughter, Konya Hendricks Schuh, as they work to rehabilitate homes in the city, which was named Wisconsin's '' in 2019, by USA Today.
Hendricks and her late husband, Ken Hendricks, founded ABC Supply in 1982. The company now has 900 locations and brings in $20.7 billion in revenue, according to PEOPLE.
'I just want to give back to the community that gave us a chance,' Hendricks says in a for the series.
Hendricks has held the top spot on Forbes' list of for eight years in a row. In 2025, she was named the richest person in Wisconsin.
Through her real estate holding companies, Hendricks has funded projects that include attractions such as , the Ironworks campus, the , and .
According to a press release from A&E, 'Determined to restore Beloit to its former glory, Diane has spent the last several decades working to improve the city through major economic development efforts. In addition to building a new stadium and school, hotels and multiple restaurants, Diane revitalized the entire industrial riverfront, finding new uses for the once-abandoned factory buildings.'
The show will feature Hendricks, Konya, and her plumbing contractor husband, Matt, friend and project manager Pete, and nephew Conor, a realtor.
'With her mother financing this ambitious venture, the stakes are high for Konya and her team as they try to achieve their collective mission: to turn once-neglected properties into vibrant dream homes for individuals and families ready to plant new roots in Beloit. With grit, heart and a whole lot of Midwest spirit, they're not just flipping houses—they're rebuilding their community, one home at a time,' A&E said.
'Catch some familiar faces and locations in the show – the crew has been filming the past year in Beloit, and now it's time to see the final production!' the City of Beloit said of the show's announcement.
Betting on Beloit will consist of 12 episodes, launching with back-to-back episodes on July 12 at 12 p.m. and 12:30 p.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Route 219 project clears regulatory hurdle
SOMERSET, Pa. – Somerset County and state transportation officials received federal clearance to proceed with a preferred U.S. Route 219 path to Maryland. The Federal Highway Administration has issued its final Environmental Impact Statement, enabling continued design work to proceed on a proposed six-mile four-lane route between Meyersdale and the Mason-Dixon Line. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation officials previously selected the route – called 'E-Shift Modified' on preliminary documents from a list of several finalists. And Somerset County leaders have backed the plan as the most direct – and most cost-effective – path. But plans for the path needed to complete a federal review before proceeding. An executive summary uploaded this month to the U.S. Route 219 project's website cited the plan's limited impact to farmland, populated areas and wetlands, compared to other options. With just two new bridges planned, the route's construction will likely be $100 million cheaper. As planned, the route will travel south of Meyersdale and veer several miles east of Salisbury Borough in Elk Lick Township before connecting to a yet-to-be-built nearly two mile link in Maryland to the Interstate 68 corridor. The two-mile path is incorporated into the project as part of a joint effort between the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania. The approval enables an extensive final design, right-of-way acquisitions and permitting to occur over the next several years, PennDOT officials said. Those phases are fully funded. But additional funding will need to be secured to complete the project's eventual construction, state and county officials have said. If all goes as planned, construction would start on the project in 2029 – and be completed in 2031. David Hurst is a reporter for The Tribune-Democrat. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @TDDavidHurst.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
'One Big Beautiful Bill' boosts highest earners most, Congressional Budget Office says
The legislation dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill'' by President Donald Trump would increase resources for middle and top earners at the expense of lower-income Americans, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan CBO analyzed the combined effects of many of the House bill's tax reductions and its cuts to federal programs, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance, over the period between 2026–2034. The mega bill's now in the Senate, which is considering changes. Benefits of the bill increase with income, with the lowest tier households losing out, CBO said. The agency compared the bill with current tax law, which encompasses Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The current pending bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts, add work requirements to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), give seniors an additional tax credit to help offset Social Security taxes, and create savings accounts for babies, among other things. Here is how the CBO says the bill would affect Americans: Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Those in the lowest income group would lose about $1,600 in resources per year, which is about 3.9% of their income, mostly because of reductions in non-cash transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP. Since many in this group pay little to no federal taxes, they would benefit less from tax cuts than higher income groups. Middle-income households would see their resources increase by $500 to $1,000, or 0.5% to 0.8% of their projected income. The top 10% of households would see a gain of about $12,000, or about 2.3% of income, mostly because of tax cuts. Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority "to provide for contingencies" or "to achieve savings" through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. "It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made," the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book "The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking." 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education "accounts for a deferral package," NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. "I imagine you will all have questions, as do we," she said. "However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations." An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their "programs gutted." The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
